Accepting Sexual Humiliation as a Cost for Flying

Would you rather be photographed naked with the dubious promise that no one is going to hold on to that picture? Or would you rather have someone probe your vaginal/scrotal region, butt crack and man/regular boobs? Both of these shame America’s puritanical virtues. I can’t imagine a scenario that doesn’t result in some judgmental thoughts from the TSA on the quality of my penis.

I am flying to Virginia from Orlando on Christmas Day with my mom. Here’s my plan. Perhaps if any of you get the oppurtunity to fly, you can make a similar protest. The deal is, if you don’t want to be photographed naked, you can opt for a pat down with complimentary sexual violation. I plan on telling the TSA guys loud enough for everyone to hear me something along the lines of:

“Dude, it’s my constitutional right as a tax-paying, voting American to have my penis and anus mishandled by a total stranger. So glove up cowboy. Get in there.”

Let’s play a Kantian thought experiment here. If everyone opted for a pat down, it would drastically slow down the security screening process. I expect two results from that. One, huge turnaround in the TSA. These people are already minimum wage, or thereabouts. There’s always food service jobs. Food service jobs don’t make you touch dicks and clammy elephant vagina’s all day (see: American’s love for fast food). Only downside: lots of pervs taking jobs with the TSA getting a little too handsy, which I guess would be unnoticeable at this point. Second, the TSA would either have to hire more people or people would have to show up earlier than the two hours early American’s already have to show up, and then only to have their shit touched. Thus making flying even less palatable. If thats even possible.

Post-Script (1/5/2011): After flying, I have this to say. There are only like 3 naked picture boxes in Orlando’s Airport. And they’re in a separate line you can voluntarily opt to get in. As in, a flier can identify the naked picture boxes, see the line snaking towards them, and, instead, take a right towards the regular TSA treatment area we’ve all begrudgingly de-shoed and de-belted for during the past decade.

There was no Iranian Revolution Tweetocalypse. It was all media fanfare and misunderstanding by the public. I shouldn’t be so surprised. But I did wear my Santa Gets Groped by TSA shirt both arriving and departing. Wooo-hoo.

I’m not going to yell, but the people in my immediate vicinity will definitely know my thoughts. And no, I’m pretty full. Ill have to let my Mom know that there’s a good chance I’ll get detained/thrown out. Also, it’s pretty awesome that I just read that 80% of Americans support the enhanced pat downs and photographed nudity. Why? Security reasons. Americans will go to any lengths to “feel safe” at airports. I’m disgusted and Jeremy, I blame you. It’s people like you who fantasize about the fictional terrors of the real world, that run out to buy shotguns and pistols, who feel impotent in the face of the presumed statistical certainty of a fiery death in the sky, that gladly hand their scrotums, breasts and vaginas to any underpaid high school drop-out that asks for them. Just because they want someone to tell them that it’s safe.

Linking those things are completely unfounded. In fact in terms of gun ownership they are the exact opposite. People who own personal firearms do so out of sense of control, and sense of preservation, and because that want to be responsible for their OWN well being. You are right about ‘Americans’ wanting to feel safe, but on the grounds that they think they live in a perfectly safe bubble where they want to be coddled, and have other people take care of the big, mean, bad guys. My old Jiu-jitsu teacher was a really paranoid creepy guy, but he once told me a story with a point I could never shake, he said while we were in the gym:

“Jeremy, what do you think these people would do in here if you and I just started snapping necks, if we just starting killing everybody. They’d all run, scream, call for the cops- almost none of them would, or would be capable of doing anything on their own. That’s the problem with people today, nobody can do anything for themselves- they all expect others to take of them.”

It was a blunt and crude story, but that point has always stuck with me. I in no way, shape, or form condone the new pat downs. And my regard for possible disaster, and firearm ownership, is what makes me care LESS about safety controls from the government. Do I like the idea of the government protecting its people? Absolutely. However I could care less about them protecting me on a personal level. Ill take care of myself.

And just because you haven’t experienced something, doesn’t make it fictional. Is it unlikely, yeah- but isn’t just saying ‘fuck it, that’s impossible’, vesting just as much ignorance in taking advantage of what you think is safe and consistent? Im sure the countless people who experience real disaster every day also watched it happen to others with a similar attitude. I don’t live in a fucking bomb shelter- i own some guns because I like them, and I have the foresight to plan for the worst.

I don’t think so. I mean in terms of raw numbers, gun-ownership in the USA has to be higher than 20%, there’s definitely some overlap between the 80% of Americans who support giving grandma’s cooch the first action it’s felt since 1989. At the same time, my logic of gun ownership is based on what you’ve told me. You want to be prepared for worst case scenarios (i.e. Katrina-esque) and not have to rely on government troops keeping you safe in your home. As well as, I’m sure you won’t as readily admit it, the need to feel safe that you could blow away anyone who threatened your comfort (i.e. broke into your apartment).

I draw the same line to these screenings. US Americans want to get patted down and see others get patted down because they’re terrified of flying. Which pales in comparison in terms of danger when compared to break-ins in Tampa, but not real-life zombie apocalypse Katrina disasters. Terrorist incidents in the US air space probably happen even less than real life large-scale disasters that would necessitate the kind of Katrina-esque gun possession you favor. Scanners, pat downs and naked photos are just like guns, in that they provide control, whether illusory or factual. One is personal control and one is external control, you’re correct. But what I’m arguing is the desire to own guns is based on the same need for control as scanners.

Regardless of how effective, regardless of personal/external control forces, the desire to feel safe based largely on irrational, worst-case, statistical lightning strike, scenarios is inextricably linked between the two. Psychologically speaking, assuming, of course. If the 80% number was much lower, less than 50%, I probably wouldn’t be making this argument. But I feel like that number’s high enough to encompass both bomb-shelter nutters and your average hand-gun owner, not even the open-carry guys like at Straight Shootin’.